D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[DammitVictor]

Uh, wut?

I don't understand this. I can break out my WOG or old modules, and I can assure you that named NPCs have classes and abilities. Because of the simplified nature of things (that you don't have ability scores as saves), they might not bother with the abilities ... but they had them.

Am I missing something?

What I mean is, if you open your book to the stat blocks of the named NPCs, they were clearly not generated using the same rules PCs are expected to use-- their ability scores are ridiculous, and if your character needs to have a couple of 6s in something to be "believable" and "interesting", clearly nobody who has designed these characters for TSR or WotC gives a damn about whether their characters are believable or interesting.

25 point buy +1 to one ability per 4 class levels doesn't qualify you to be a crossing guard in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What I mean is, if you open your book to the stat blocks of the named NPCs, they were clearly not generated using the same rules PCs are expected to use-- their ability scores are ridiculous, and if your character needs to have a couple of 6s in something to be "believable" and "interesting", clearly nobody who has designed these characters for TSR or WotC gives a damn about whether their characters are believable or interesting.

25 point buy +1 to one ability per 4 class levels doesn't qualify you to be a crossing guard in the Forgotten Realms.

Well, I'm not sure that's the case with TSR-era D&D in general, certainly not the 70s and 80s D&D I'm familiar!

That said, I do think that there are two separate things to account for-

1. Forgotten Realms. I mean ... it's somewhat notorious for having a lot of overpowered characters, right? Can't throw a brick without Elminster showing up and saving the universe.

2. As a general rule, notable NPCs are those who have survived and triumphed and are likely more powerful and better than others. It's a sampling bias- it's like saying that you don't understand why, when you are looking at professional basketball players, they tend to be so tall.

 

[Mannahnin]

Something to remember about NPCs and ability scores is that... there's a commonality between AD&D and WotC D&D about the fact that named NPCs simply aren't running on the same rules as player characters and player characters aren't supposed to be anywhere near as powerful as the authors' precious pets.

Rock up to most any D&D table in any D&D edition with a 1st level Drizzt Do'Urden or even a Sturm Brightblade and the DM's going to tell you to roll your next character where everyone can see it.

I think there's a bit of a chicken or the egg thing going on here. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels presumably exemplify the sorts of adventures players are expected to want to emulate, and the kind of heroes they want to play.

Do the stats of novel characters reflect that they are supposed to just be better than the ones we get to play? Or were they indeed meant to be for us to emulate? Or are they merely based on what the authors think the characters need to qualify as heroic and to do the things they do based on the ability score tables and other game rules?

I agree that if I show up to a new DM's table with a character with a crazy stat array (nevermind special extra critical hit rules like Drizzt got in the Hall of Heroes book) he'll likely ask me to roll in front of the group. But the more common situation IME was tables as a whole looking at the rulebooks and published characters and agreeing together "Ok, that's the kind of thing we want to play, so clearly we need some house rules for ability generation", so we could play characters more like Drizzt and less like Rath. Even if we agree that Drizzt is overpowered, and we don't want to go quite that far.

Does some special virtue attach to only playing a character with high stats, say, one out of every six characters you roll up?

Does a culture of expecting that to be the norm result in players scoffing or looking askance at a given player when he gets lucky and gets a Sturm-esque statline?

 

[cbwjm]

I actually quite like using Gygax's additional rule requiring at least two 15s, I think it's a good rule for those early editions and I'd definitely include it for a 2e game. I included it for a 5e game as well, it worked well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, I'm not sure that's the case with TSR-era D&D in general, certainly not the 70s and 80s D&D I'm familiar!

A few months ago when something similar came up, I went back and looked at NPCs in TSR era. Both in the adventure, and pregens. And I'd say roughly 75% of them had superhero stats that never would have happened with any of the methods PCs use. It surprised me, actually, just how blatant it was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A few months ago when something similar came up, I went back and looked at NPCs in TSR era. Both in the adventure, and pregens. And I'd say roughly 75% of them had superhero stats that never would have happened with any of the methods PCs use. It surprised me, actually, just how blatant it was.

Well, not never. Just very unlikely. I've certainly seen characters with those kind of stats rolled on 3d6 in order.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, not never. Just very unlikely. I've certainly seen characters with those kind of stats rolled on 3d6 in order.

I've been playing AD&D since 1981. Never saw character stats rolled legit that ended up like this. Mathematically it's pretty much impossible. And most NPCs in the back of modules were like this. I always figured these were elevated stats because most of those 1e modules were tournament modules first.

 

[James Gasik]

I've been playing AD&D since 1981. Never saw character stats rolled legit that ended up like this. Mathematically it's pretty much impossible. And most NPCs in the back of modules were like this. I always figured these were elevated stats because most of those 1e modules were tournament modules first.

View attachment 284709

With some of the tournament modules, I do remember that the characters with the better stats generally started out at lower level or had worse gear. I could be wrong, darned aging penalties.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A few months ago when something similar came up, I went back and looked at NPCs in TSR era. Both in the adventure, and pregens. And I'd say roughly 75% of them had superhero stats that never would have happened with any of the methods PCs use. It surprised me, actually, just how blatant it was.

While I basically agree that stat lines like 18 18 17 14 15 18 are implausible and unnecessary especially for local-scale NPCs like some random 3rd level jackalwere bard, you can get some pretty impressive stats with the method "4d6k3, arrange to taste, play recklessly until you die. Repeat until you get amazing stats and then start being cautious."

 

[James Gasik]

While I basically agree that stat lines like 18 18 17 14 15 18 are implausible and unnecessary especially for local-scale NPCs like some random 3rd level jackalwere bard, you can get some pretty impressive stats with the method "4d6k3, arrange to taste, play recklessly until you die. Repeat until you get amazing stats and then start being cautious."

This is also a fair point. There aren't a lot of reasons to just stick it out with a mediocre character. Even if your DM forces you to start at level 1 with starting gear, that just means you're better off getting your bad character killed off quickly.

I never did this on purpose myself, but my group was infamous for making a lot of new characters, and I've always had way more ideas for characters than actual games to play them in. So most of the time, if a character wasn't working out, even if it was good, it wasn't a big deal to switch to another one.

And while the game has methods to bring weaker characters up to snuff, like Tomes, Gloves of Dexterity, Girdles of Giant Strength, Decks of Many Things (which can also turn great characters into soulless automatons hated by every Devil in the Nine Hells!), a lot of DM's seemed pretty stingy with these, lol.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is also a fair point. There aren't a lot of reasons to just stick it out with a mediocre character. Even if your DM forces you to start at level 1 with starting gear, that just means you're better off getting your bad character killed off quickly.

Well... there CAN be reasons to stick it out, whether because your character made it to 5th level, or lucked out and found a cool magic item or got a good draw from the Deck of Many Things, or you're enjoying their personality, or all three. Or those could equally well be reasons to retire the character. It depends.

As DM I like troupe play because players don't have to kill off characters to try out new ones, and I like awarding experience per-player instead of per-PC so that playing an adventure with a character whom you don't expect to take all the way to high level doesn't feel like a waste of the player's time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well... there CAN be reasons to stick it out, whether because your character made it to 5th level, or lucked out and found a cool magic item or got a good draw from the Deck of Many Things, or you're enjoying their personality, or all three. Or those could equally well be reasons to retire the character. It depends.

As DM I like troupe play because players don't have to kill off characters to try out new ones, and I like awarding experience per-player instead of per-PC so that playing an adventure with a character whom you don't expect to take all the way to high level doesn't feel like a waste of the player's time.

Agreed. I really wish I could get more players to try it out.

 

[Mannahnin]

I've been playing AD&D since 1981. Never saw character stats rolled legit that ended up like this. Mathematically it's pretty much impossible. And most NPCs in the back of modules were like this. I always figured these were elevated stats because most of those 1e modules were tournament modules first.

Pretty much impossible for it to be so many and so consistent, unless you assume there's some sampling bias at play, like Snarf mentioned.

Looking at the old Rogues Gallery and such I always figured that a) They were using more generous generation methods, and b) ability score-raising magic effects in dungeons must have been relatively common back in the 70s. Which also explains Gary's seemingly-insane rules for Wishes raising ability scores in the 1E DMG. 1 point per Wish up to 16 and then TEN WISHES per point after that or something similarly obscene. Wishes must have been coming out of people's ears.

It can certainly can and does happen in rare instances, though. I rolled up an OSE character during the pandemic for an online shared world/quasi-West Marches game with stats roughly Str 17, Int 16, Wis 11, Dex 17, Con 12, Cha 7, using 3d6 in order! I was mildly stunned and very glad I did it using the online stat roller macro we were all using on Roll20, where everyone could see it.

 

[Mannahnin]

I actually quite like using Gygax's additional rule requiring at least two 15s, I think it's a good rule for those early editions and I'd definitely include it for a 2e game. I included it for a 5e game as well, it worked well.

I think it's a solid rule for AD&D, though not really needed in OD&D, B/X or BECMI, which have rules for point-swapping to increase your prime requisite. OD&D also generally doesn't provide as many benefits for high ability scores (though moreso post-Greyhawk), and B/X & BECMI make useful bonuses available with stats as low as an 11 (Int for bonus languages) or 13 (Con, Str, Dex, Wis).

Those three versions generally just need/want a little protection from overall crappy statlines. Like Moldvay's guidelines for re-rolling "hopeless characters", or the mirror/flip the set house rule I use to avoid anyone needing re-rolls.

 

[Willie the Duck]

And while the game has methods to bring weaker characters up to snuff, like Tomes, Gloves of Dexterity, Girdles of Giant Strength, Decks of Many Things (which can also turn great characters into soulless automatons hated by every Devil in the Nine Hells!), a lot of DM's seemed pretty stingy with these, lol.

Conversely, they can be fairly anti-stingy if it makes something doable. Gauntlets of Ogre Power/Girdles of Giant Strength ranged from 0.2-0.4% of random magic item drops (of unspecified type) across oD&D and the two AD&Ds. Yet they seem to have been incredibly common both amongst PCs I saw in play (perhaps DMs not using the tables) and treasure in modules. I think part of that was because (ex.) Joe was really pleased with the fighter he was cultivating in terms of personality and social connections and other mechanical heft (like HP rolls and magic items), but was rocking that 13 Strength and was he going to lose interest.

Looking at the old Rogues Gallery and such I always figured that a) They were using more generous generation methods, and b) ability score-raising magic effects in dungeons must have been relatively common back in the 70s. Which also explains Gary's seemingly-insane rules for Wishes raising ability scores in the 1E DMG. 1 point per Wish up to 16 and then TEN WISHES per point after that or something similarly obscene. Wishes must have been coming out of people's ears.

Geezer and Chirine and a few of the old guard I've talked with have kinda indicated such to be the case. Gary didn't realize quite how destabilizing wishes would be, or maybe that people would save them up for 'permanent' mechanical effects rather than world-changers or get-out-of-a-jail-free cards or such. IIRC, several years ago Jon Peterson showcased an early copy of Rob Kuntz's Robilar character sheet of which someone had a copy. It had some genuinely improbable stats for 3d6, including some that had changed.

BITD, particularly if we used the '16+: 10:1' rules*, we tended to instead use wishes to get re-rolls for level-ups where we rolled low for HP. Probably not statistically beneficial (if you rolled a 2 on a d8, the reroll would likely only net you 2.5 extra hp, hardly worth a wish), but I think (as FormerlyHemlock alludes, above) a lot of the stat difference was psychological.
*my actual BITD gaming was mostly BX/BECM/AD&D hybrid play.

I think it's a solid rule for AD&D, though not really needed in OD&D, B/X or BECMI, which have rules for point-swapping to increase your prime requisite. OD&D also generally doesn't provide as many benefits for high ability scores (though moreso post-Greyhawk), and B/X & BECMI make useful bonuses available with stats as low as an 11 (Int for bonus languages) or 13 (Con, Str, Dex, Wis).

We found B/X's p. X51 pretty early and realized that each point of stat was useful for the generalized resolution mechanics (and used those quite extensively before skills came along). For that reason, we rarely used the point-swapping mechanic.

The older I get, the more I like oD&D (pre-supp. I) method, but then with B/X X.51 logic applied -- the primary way you got better at (ex.) being a fighter was to have more levels in fighter, and attributes/attribute checks mostly covered other aspects of the game that class, level, attack rolls, spells, and the like did not cover. Sine Nominee's OSR-adjacent Worlds Without Number roughly follows that, and I find it very refreshing after both 5e and AD&D.

 

[Voadam]

Conversely, they can be fairly anti-stingy if it makes something doable. Gauntlets of Ogre Power/Girdles of Giant Strength ranged from 0.2-0.4% of random magic item drops (of unspecified type) across oD&D and the two AD&Ds. Yet they seem to have been incredibly common both amongst PCs I saw in play (perhaps DMs not using the tables) and treasure in modules.

In contrast in B/X Gauntlets of Ogre Power are one of only 10 miscellaneous magic items.

If your first couple of adventures as an AD&D player were in early B/X series modules that worked in your favor.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rock up to most any D&D table in any D&D edition with a 1st level Drizzt Do'Urden or even a Sturm Brightblade and the DM's going to tell you to roll your next character where everyone can see it.

Not true. In AD&D, the named PCs from novels had weaker stats than most pregens with the rest of the modules. compare the stat block above with the actual stat block for the Dragonlance Heroes for instance. The DL NPCs are pretty close to what actual PCs had (maybe slightly elevated, but not much), whereas the generic pregens all had super stats

 

[Willie the Duck]

In contrast in B/X Gauntlets of Ogre Power are one of only 10 miscellaneous magic items.

That's true for Basic out of Moldvay-Cook. Miscellaneous magic items are 5% of total any-item drops, so that puts them at 0.5%. If you switch over to Expert, miscellaneous magic items are still 5%, but gauntlets and girdle (new item) are now 9% of the total, putting them at .45%.

since we seem to be doing a synopsis, let's finish: --

Holmes Basic matches B/X.

Mentzer Basic sticks with 5% miscellaneous and ten items, but uses a D20 to determine which, and gauntlets only have a 5% chance (total 0.25%).
Expert has only 7% of miscellaneous magic items be gauntlets or girdles, but miscellaneous is a full 10% of any-item drops, so the total is a whopping 0.7%.
Companion makes them 4% of misc., which are 8% of total (to make 0.32%).
Master does not bother with new magic items, instead focusing on artifacts
Immortal likewise has better things to do, but does give the character the ability to make almost any magic item they want, and to raise their stats by spending permanent Power Points*.
*yeah, the Immortal rules are kind of a different game
The Rules Cyclopedia make miscellaneous magic items 10% of the total, with gauntlets and girdles at 4% of that (0.4% total).

All of this is skewed in various directions by the treasure charts for a given situation not being a random magic item, but instead specifying weapons, scrolls, potions, or the like.

If your first couple of adventures as an AD&D player were in early B/X series modules that worked in your favor.

Definitely.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Not true. In AD&D, the named PCs from novels had weaker stats than most pregens with the rest of the modules. compare the stat block above with the actual stat block for the Dragonlance Heroes for instance. The DL NPCs are pretty close to what actual PCs had (maybe slightly elevated, but not much), whereas the generic pregens all had super stats

View attachment 284863

There's some crazy unreal stats in there, which really don't apply to what the characters should have!
Anyway still not very likely with only 2 single digit out of 48

 

[James Gasik]

After many years, the 2e game I'm in has added a new player. And for the first time, I've noticed something that never stood out to me before; how different two characters can really be in terms of abilities; for fairness, I made a new character to adventure with the new player's character, a Human Noble Warrior.

She made a comment when looking at my sheet that I had way more stuff written on it than she did, and that got me to thinking.

I mean, for example, an Elf Fighter and a Human Fighter. The Elf has to record 90% MR vs. sleep/charm, 60' infravision, and the ability to notice/detect concealed and secret doors, and also gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls with long swords, short swords, and bows.

Then both get the same proficiency slots, and can record weapon specialization.

If both characters take Kits, some Kits are as simple as Gladiator/Myrmidon "get a free weapon specialization" and some comments about working for a standing military force or being very recognizable.

Other Kits, like the Cavalier or Berserker require a great deal more notes (Cavaliers get a lot of abilities, Go Berserk is extremely wordy).

Just using Core + Fighter's Handbook, the amount of bookkeeping can vary wildly!

I'm not sure what I think about this. It's not really a bug or a feature, I don't think, it's just how the game is. But it is interesting when you look at how gaming has evolved, and most characters now have several abilities of note, as opposed to a 2e Fighter you could fit on a notecard!